CELTIC Trust's proposal for the club to sell the jerseys is daft in this tough economic climate and the board will politely tell them their idea won't become a reality.

Barcelona can afford to have the sponsorship of a charity on their strips

Share

Get daily updates directly to your inbox

Thank you for subscribing!

Could not subscribe, try again laterInvalid Email

I HATE to spoil the ending to a story but I’ll make an exception in the case of Celtic’s AGM.

All fair-minded people will hope Celtic do well against Barcelona in the Champions League on Wednesday night.

But any right-thinking person understands that any comparison between the clubs off the park is purely coincidental.

One is from a lavish background that enables them to extravagantly pay for the world’s best players while luxuriating in the wealth provided by an annual turnover enhanced by a diamond-encrusted television contract.

And the other one is Celtic.

But this message hasn’t yet filtered through to the members of the Celtic Trust.

They have tabled a motion for the AGM a week on Friday asking that the club find a new shirt sponsor so that Rangers won’t share the same backer.

If that can’t be done the trust want Celtic to refuse any joint sponsorship.

Instead, say the trust, they should copy Barcelona and wear the name of an appropriate charity on their shirt, honouring their charitable roots on the occasion of the club’s 125th anniversary.

Free, gratis and for nothing.

Any association with Rangers is increasingly unpopular with the Celtic supporters – so is the term “Old Firm,” according to the wording of the trust’s resolution.

It is an “Unwanted Alliance” in the eyes of the group who also want the appointment of a Supporter Liaison Officer to give them a greater say in the club’s running.

The reply from Celtic’s board, which I have in my possession, is a masterful put-down.

And it’s contained within a polite request that this daft notion be given a decent burial – in the form of an overwhelming vote against such a nonsensical proposal.

Their written response states: “Celtic’s approach to shirt sponsorship is shaped by what the board considers to be in the company’s best interests.”

In other words, if somebody wants to give Celtic and Rangers financial backing at the same time, that’s fine by principal shareholder Dermot Desmond and chief executive Peter Lawwell.

The current arrangement provides “substantial and valuable commercial revenues”.

Translation: Where else are Celtic going to get this kind of cash in today’s economic climate?

“Whether a sponsor wishes to contract with another club is a matter for them, taking account of its commercial interests.”

That means Celtic’s commercial alliance with Rangers might very well be unwanted in the eyes of some – but business is business.

Barcelona can afford to have the Qatar Foundation on their shirts as a charitable gesture. Celtic have bills to pay.

And you can bet your life Charles Green’s attitude would be the same if a business tells the Ibrox owner they’ll only sponsor Rangers shirts if Celtic sign up for the deal too.

Celtic have given the trust the written equivalent of saying: “Away you go and don’t be so daft.”

Charles would doubtless put it even more succinctly.

The clubs share the same shirt sponsors because it would be commercial suicide for a company to back one and not the other.

Your product, whether it’s alcohol or double glazing, would be boycotted by one set of supporters unless the sponsorship involved both teams at the same time.

Where do people get these daft ideas from in the first place?

Hearts manager John McGlynn says the SPL would be better off without Celtic and Rangers because crowds would flock back if their club had a realistic chance of winning the title.

If you said ‘Good morning’ to the SPL’s chief executive Neil Doncaster, he would demand that his reply was off the record.

But he should have spoken out publicly and reminded McGlynn the SPL would have no TV contract at all if Celtic weren’t there. It would be a commercial catastrophe.

There’s no evidence to suggest more people will materialise to watch SPL games than at present.

Every sponsor is to be cherished and not insulted by saying their money is tainted.

If the Celtic Trust want to ask questions, they might enquire why fans are being charged £75 each for a question and answer session with Neil Lennon that follows a three-course dinner on November 24.

What’s that all about at the club “Formed for the maintenance of dinner tables for the children and the unemployed?”